World Families Forums - Another look at Anthony's ideas

ARCHIVAL COPY

WorldFamilies has changed our Forum Operating system and migrated the postings from the prior system. We hope that you’ll find this new system easier to use and we expect it to manage spammers much better. If you can’t find an old posting, please check our Legacy Forum to see if you can see the old posting there.

The non-partisan Encyclopedia of European people states on page 821 about the Vandals The Vandals are thought to have originated on the northern Jutland Peninsula in present-day Denmark, although some scholars, on the basis of similarity of place-names, place the ancestral group in Norway or Sweden. At some point, possibly as early as the fifth century B.C.E .but more likely in the second century B.C.E,the Vandals crossed the Baltic Sea to present-day northern Poland. They are associated by archaeologists with the Przeworsk culture of the Vistula-Oder region, characterized by burials of warriors with their full war panoply, including spurs, showing that, unlike many Germanic groups, Vandals,considered cavalry an important part of warfare.They perhaps were descended from the same ancestral group as the LUGII . By about 120 B.C.E .the Vandals made their home in the Sudeten Mountains of Silesia, a region mostly in what is now southwest Poland, with parts in the adjoining present-day Czech Republic and Germany

It is highly unlikely that any Eastern Germanic group originated in Scandinavia and crossed the Baltic Sea. This is due to the fact that Scandinavian R1a is almost exclusively Z284, and in Central and Eastern Europe there is an absolute dearth of R1a-Z284 with only one reported hit in Russia just west of the Urals.

The non-partisan Encyclopedia of European people states on page 821 about the Vandals The Vandals are thought to have originated on the northern Jutland Peninsula in present-day Denmark, although some scholars, on the basis of similarity of place-names, place the ancestral group in Norway or Sweden. At some point, possibly as early as the fifth century B.C.E .but more likely in the second century B.C.E,the Vandals crossed the Baltic Sea to present-day northern Poland. They are associated by archaeologists with the Przeworsk culture of the Vistula-Oder region, characterized by burials of warriors with their full war panoply, including spurs, showing that, unlike many Germanic groups, Vandals,considered cavalry an important part of warfare.They perhaps were descended from the same ancestral group as the LUGII . By about 120 B.C.E .the Vandals made their home in the Sudeten Mountains of Silesia, a region mostly in what is now southwest Poland, with parts in the adjoining present-day Czech Republic and Germany

It is highly unlikely that any Eastern Germanic group originated in Scandinavia and crossed the Baltic Sea. This is due to the fact that Scandinavian R1a is almost exclusively Z284, and in Central and Eastern Europe there is an absolute dearth of R1a-Z284 with only one reported hit in Russia just west of the Urals.

Z284 doesn't have to have been around in the Goth and Vandal populations. It could have risen to prevalence later.

The stuff I've read also say that there was a large Jastorf and Nordic Bronze age influence on the Polish cultures I talked about. The clade you mentioned doesn't appear too common in Germany. So maybe the East Germanics developed out of that as the Wikipedia articles said, with only a small elite migration from Scandinavia. East Germanic was the earliest to diverge from proto-Germanic, so the hypothesis of it arising from Jastorf (considered to be proto-Germanic) influences makes sense. Also, a lot of the Goth and Vandal people later migrated to Western and Southern Europe.

I did notice that the chain of cultures that Anthony sees moving from somewhere near the carpathians eastwards and forming the roots of Slavic, Baltic and Indo-Uranian avoided the steppe and travelled through the forrest steppe.

Alan, please give finally the exact quote from Anthony where he claims that Indo-Uranians or Indo-Neptunians (actually I mean Aryans = Indo-Iranians ;) ) are derived from the Corded Ware Culture.

He doesnt state it in a single quote. You have to follow his descriptions of the chain of cultures passing from the Carpathians into Asia and his comments on continuing indicators of their corded ware (eastern extension) roots and derivation from each other. There is a good supporting map. You have to read the whole of his books section on this. I dont have my copy to hand but when I do I will try to did out the pages.

People tend to focus on his book in terms of the PIE homeland question and he does have a clear Kurgan model approach for that. Nevertheless when he comes to explaining the branches east of the Carpathians/Vistula he describes this in a way that can be summarised as a reflux eastwards movement of cultures with corded ware roots (although with other elements).

This tends to not be talked about on these forums because it slightly post-dates the PIE homeland question. Also Anthony was not especially DNA interested. He did not realise the implications of firstly describing corded ware as steppe-influenced TRB people (which has been the standard interpretation by archaeologists over the last decade) and then explaining Slavic, Baltic, Indo-Iranian as a corded ware inspired reflux movement through the forrest steppes then south. The implication from a genetic point of view would be that the cultures of those languages which today are closest linked to R1a with cultures with corded ware roots is that R1a would not be steppe in origin. He didnt say that but that is the logical deduction in a couple of steppes. The idea that corded ware people are in fact steppes derived R1a people is not Anthony's. By the way noone is saying Anthony is infallible! He may well be wrong in places but all I am saying is I think his description of a west to east corded ware influenced chain of cultures from the Carpathians to Asia as the roots of the Slavic, Baltic and Indo-Iranian seems to not be discussed. Nor are the implications of what he says if you peace together several aspects of his interpretation. Then again he was not worrying about how DNA fitted his model. Anyway, all I am saying is the R1a link in these cultures really does mean the nature of early Corded Ware in southern Poland (i.e is it kurgan influenced local farmers or kurgan settlers influenced by local farmers). The incredibly importance of this to using Anthony's model to see R1a as steppe in deep origin just seems not to have been discussed as much as a logical interpretation of Anthony's model should dictate. If you literally stitch together the following two aspects of Anthony's model

1. Corded Ware was kurgan-influenced local farmers in the main.2. The chain of cultures that lead to Slavic, Baltic and Indo-Iranian with cultures which he notes as showing corded ware roots

THEN ADD the fact that those are the IE languages most closely linked with R1a

THEN the logical conclusion if you follow through the logic of those two beliefs of Anthony is that R1a among the Slavs, Balts and I-Iranians is due to the non-steppe element in corded ware that moved east. That would place the immediate homeland of the sort of R1a associated with the those languages as the Balkans. I notice Anatole's latest offering on R1a implies a huge loop the appears to have arrived in the Balkans before the western steppes.

As for Slavic - that burst out in all directions in the early Middle Ages, long after a large chunk of former CW territory had become Germanic. So there is a pattern of one IE dialect/language washing over another.

There's absolutely no evidence of any mass migration of Germanics from East Central Europe during the migration period. Modern DNA shows very clearly that this did not happen, with no signals being picked up by IBD or formal mixture tests.

Moreover, the "West Slavic" R1a-M458 is native to Central Europe, and spread into Ukraine and Belarus from the west.

I'd say we're about to find out via ancient DNA that Germanics were never present in what is now Eastern Germany until the early Middle Ages.

All of this is crucial to understanding where Germanic languages and much of modern European R1b came from, and that certainly wasn't Eastern Europe.

It seem likely that they both started way to the east. Anatole Klyosov seems to place them in southern Siberia and goes on to describe R1a as performing an incredible loop from there through the Himalayas and through Anatolia in SE Europe then into Russia etc. That seems pretty incredible but it isnt without some logic. It places R1a in Balkans and eastern European farming groups before the steppes. Linking that into Anthony's model would of course make it impossible not to link the final spread of R1a with the chain of cultures with corded ware roots (moving through the forrest steppes) that Anthony links with Slavic, Baltic and I-Iranian. That of course would indeed place R1a in non-steppes (middle?) Neolithic eastern and/or south-eastern Europe. I think Anthony somewhere does imply that the origin of the Slavs was among Kurganised older farmers of non-steppe eastern Europe that took off around Carpathians and nearby. I think he considers the slavs the ones who stayed behind around the Carpathians or nearby when the Corded Ware derived chain of cultures thrust east through the forest steppe leading to Baltic and I-Iranian. I think the idea that the Slavs originated in corded ware elements (or mixed elements) around the Carpathians is attractive. Some say they descend from Kurganised Cucuteni-Trypole peoples in a similar area. The basic concept of either seems reasonable and not hugely dissimilar. Both of course would seem to imply that R1a entered the Ukraine, European Russia etc from the west not the east.

Of course these languages (and R1a), not least Slavic and Iranian, also hugely expanded in subsequent times into other areas, something that I think should not be forgotten when using modern maps to interpret the past. I do think using the modern distribution of R1a to imply what was going on 5 or 6 thousand years ago could be as badly misleading for a place like Russia for R1a as doing the same would be in the west. In the west pretty well no R1b is currently thought to have been present 6000 years ago but its full of it now. The same applies for R1a in the east IMO. Only extremely careful refining of subclades and variance should ever be used IMO.

I think this is important because I feel people try too hard to make as big a contrast as possible in the story of R1a and R1b. If something like Anatole is implying for R1a and R1b in his 2012 papers then they did actually have a lot in common in their incredible journeys from the east. Its so complex with so many uncertainties that I cant conclude at all on this. However, I certainly cannot rule out the possibility that R1a did enter the farming cultures of east-central or SE Europe in say the period 5000-4000BC and had nothing to do with the Ukrainian steppes etc. In fact, I have also wondered if R1b did not also do this because of the M269* in the Balkans and high variance L23* in Romania. I feel the impulse to give R1a and R1b very different early European histories is rather influenced by modern distribution which is at least partly tied to language expansions in later times.

As for Slavic - that burst out in all directions in the early Middle Ages, long after a large chunk of former CW territory had become Germanic. So there is a pattern of one IE dialect/language washing over another.

There's absolutely no evidence of any mass migration of Germanics from East Central Europe during the migration period. Modern DNA shows very clearly that this did not happen, with no signals being picked up by IBD or formal mixture tests.

Moreover, the "West Slavic" R1a-M458 is native to Central Europe, and spread into Ukraine and Belarus from the west.

So, are you thinking that R1a has been in Poland since the Neolithic (pre-steppe) i.e. in TRB or Corded Ware and its presence in Ukraine is due to movements east from Poland and adjacent countries?

I'm thinking that R1a has been in Poland & Germany since the late Neolithic at least. I think some of the groups studied below carried R1a, and that'll soon be confirmed when Y-DNA is tested in these samples...

But here's a map of Europe from that time, or just prior. Note the large and looming Dniepr/Don cultural horizon just to the east of what is now Poland. I wonder what language they spoke and types of Y-DNA they carried? Probably R1a.

There's absolutely no evidence of any mass migration of Germanics from East Central Europe during the migration period. Modern DNA shows very clearly that this did not happen, with no signals being picked up by IBD or formal mixture tests.

She keeps saying there was a massive migration of Germanics from what is now Poland. But there's no evidence of anything like that.

On the other hand, there is now plenty of evidence of genetic continuity in Poland, followed by a massive expansion from Poland...of Slavs not Germanics.

Here are some interesting results from loanword studies:- Germanic has had continuing contacts with Finnic and Saami- Germanic has only later come into contact with Slavic (Gothic) and Baltichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Slavic_borrowings- Balto-Slavic and then Baltic has been in contacts with Finnic

How can we explain the situation? Clearly Germanic and Slavic cannot have been spoken close to each other. If Slavic homeland is pulled as west as to Poland, then Germanic homeland must be somewhere else than in its immediate west - that excludes Germany. We could throw Germanic to Southern Finland to allow the Slavic homeland in Poland, but then we could not explain the continuing closeness of Germanic and Celtic.

Tied between Finnic and Saami on the one hand, and Celtic on the other hand, Germanic must be located in Southern Scandinavia. Slavic, then, cannot have been anywhere too close to Germanic or Celtic - that excludes Germany and the westernmost and northernmost parts of Poland, too.

Quote from: alan trowel hands

He doesnt state it in a single quote. You have to follow his descriptions of the chain of cultures passing from the Carpathians into Asia and his comments on continuing indicators of their corded ware (eastern extension) roots and derivation from each other. There is a good supporting map. You have to read the whole of his books section on this. I dont have my copy to hand but when I do I will try to did out the pages.

You are right: Anthony argues for some Corded Ware (Fatyanovo) traits in Abashevo Culture, which then gave some influence to Sintashta Culture. But Poltavka Culture of the steppes south of Abashevo still seems to be the major factor behind Sintashta, if I got it right.

How can we explain the situation? Clearly Germanic and Slavic cannot have been spoken close to each other. If Slavic homeland is pulled as west as to Poland, then Germanic homeland must be somewhere else than in its immediate west - that excludes Germany. We could throw Germanic to Southern Finland to allow the Slavic homeland in Poland, but then we could not explain the continuing closeness of Germanic and Celtic.

Why and how language contacts were blocked is one issue. Another issue altogether is the claim that Germanics migrated on a massive scale to what is now Poland, and then from Poland, leaving the whole country empty.

Poland wasn't emptied, because there's now strong evidence of genetic continuity from before and after it was supposed to be empty, but there's no evidence of any massive Germanic migrations to and from Poland.

More likely, the Germanic migrations were much smaller, they didn't cause any part of northern or central Europe to empty, and the source of these Germanic movements was present-day southern Germany and Austria (ie. the former Roman frontier).

She keeps saying there was a massive migration of Germanics from what is now Poland. But there's no evidence of anything like that.

On the other hand, there is now plenty of evidence of genetic continuity in Poland, followed by a massive expansion from Poland...of Slavs not Germanics.

If you read my post properly I suggested that the presence of Germanics in Poland didn't need a large scale migration, but could be explained by the attested archaeological links between Scandinavia, northern Germany and Poland that had existed for centuries, which I provided evidence for. If ethnically Gothic and Vandalic people did ever migrate into Poland from Scandinavia, than I agree that both the genetic and archaeological evidence shows the migration was not very large.

Not only that, I was under the impression that the foundation of Vandalic and Gothic kingdoms were established by small-scale Germanic armies and were not true folk movements, as we know from the lack of Germanic markers in places like Spain and North Africa. So neither did I claim there was a large Germanic migration OUT of Poland.

Why and how language contacts were blocked is one issue. Another issue altogether is the claim that Germanics migrated on a massive scale to what is now Poland, and then from Poland, leaving the whole country empty.

Poland wasn't emptied, because there's now strong evidence of genetic continuity from before and after it was supposed to be empty, but there's no evidence of any massive Germanic migrations to and from Poland.

More likely, the Germanic migrations were much smaller, they didn't cause any part of northern or central Europe to empty, and the source of these Germanic movements was present-day southern Germany and Austria (ie. the former Roman frontier).

Yes, I think you may be right with this. If East Germanic languages/peoples spread through Poland, we should see more different loanwords in Slavic: archaic East Germanic words (looking like Proto-Germanic loanwords) and loanwords from other languages than Goth, too. As the Northwest Germanic can be located approximately in Denmark and Southern Sweden, the East Germanic could have originally been actually "South" Germanic, which only secondarily spread to the east. Later the expansion of the German dialects to the south would have wiped out the traces of this earlier "East" Germanic presence.

The stuff I've read also say that there was a large Jastorf and Nordic Bronze age influence on the Polish cultures I talked about. The clade you mentioned doesn't appear too common in Germany. So maybe the East Germanics developed out of that as the Wikipedia articles said, with only a small elite migration from Scandinavia. East Germanic was the earliest to diverge from proto-Germanic, so the hypothesis of it arising from Jastorf (considered to be proto-Germanic) influences makes sense.

Also, a lot of the Goth and Vandal people later migrated to Western and Southern Europe.

Correct. But by that time, after living in Central Europe and the Ukraine for several centuries what probably constituted Goth and Vandal was a mix-mash of German, Balt, Slav, Celt, Thracian, Dacian, and people of Scythian descent etc. And quite possibly the overall numbers were vastly over-estimated, so that by the time they reached the Italian and Iberian peninsulas you just had one ruling-elite being exchanged for another.

If you read my post properly I suggested that the presence of Germanics in Poland didn't need a large scale migration, but could be explained by the attested archaeological links between Scandinavia, northern Germany and Poland that had existed for centuries, which I provided evidence for. If ethnically Gothic and Vandalic people did ever migrate into Poland from Scandinavia, than I agree that both the genetic and archaeological evidence shows the migration was not very large.

I did read your post properly, but I wasn't referring to you in my post, I was referring to Jean Manco.

She keeps saying there were massive migrations of Germanics into Poland during the Iron Age, and then massive migrations out of Poland during the early Middle Ages (so called migration period).

This is nonsense, because if it were true then there'd be no continuity between Iron Age Przeworsk and Wielbark remains from Poland with those of the early Polish Slavs in terms of craniofacial and dental traits. But clearly there are, and they're striking in how ethnic-specific they are.

Preliminary ancient DNA results show the same thing, and so does modern DNA (origins and spread of Y-DNA M458 from Central Europe).

Furthermore, there are no special relationships between modern Germanics and groups that are supposed to be of partly ancient Germanic descent. For instance, North Italians from Lombardy share very little Identity-by-Descent segments with Germans and Scandinavians dating to the migration period or thereabouts. The same can be said of Iberians who come from former Gothic regions of Iberia.

So there's something very rotten in all these claims of massive Germanic migrations around East Central, Eastern and Southern Europe. It looks like they weren't all that big, certainly not big enough to cause the emptying of territory anywhere north of the Alps and Carpathians.

I think much of what has been written to date about Germanic origins and migrations has been pure propaganda, straight out of a Nazi manual on how to twist the truth. Modern science is really going to blow the lid on all the crap that's been bragged about by so called scholars in the west.

... I did read your post properly, but I wasn't referring to you in my post, I was referring to Jean Manco.

She keeps saying there were massive migrations of Germanics into Poland during the Iron Age, and then massive migrations out of Poland during the early Middle Ages (so called migration period).

This is nonsense...

I'm not a great student of this. Please quote Jean as to what she says related to massive migrations. Her book is not available publicly yet so I think you are talking about her posts. Please quote her.

BTW, I see higher U106 diversity in Poland and in the Baltic states than in Germany. I'm trying figure that out. This is a R1b and Subclades forum and U106 is found among Germanic speakers. Where do you think the U106 folks came from? Are they from Germany? or some place east of or north of there or whatever?

I'm not a great student of this. Please quote Jean as to what she says related to massive migrations. Her book is not available publicly yet so I think you are talking about her posts. Please quote her.

I'm referring to her comments at the former DNA-forums and at the Building History website. Both are down at the moment.

But if you don't believe me then e-mail her and I'm sure she'll tell you that these massive Germanic migrations did happen, and that one of the consequences was the emptying of large swaths of territory south of the Baltic.

Quote

BTW, I see higher U106 diversity in Poland and in the Baltic states than in Germany. I'm trying figure that out. This is a R1b and Subclades forum and U106 is found among Germanic speakers. Where do you think the U106 folks came from? Are they from Germany? or some place east of or north of there or whatever?

You seem convinced that STR diversity means something in this context. But what if it means nothing? Have you considered that?

For instance, the STR diversity of R1a-Z93 reaches extreme levels in North India, so much so that it even makes things look like R1a originated there. But we now know that R1a-Z293 isn't ancestral to the R1a clades in Europe.

That's just one example. I'm sure there are many more like that. As for the question of where U106 came from, I have no idea. But it's unlikely to have arisen anywhere in present-day Poland or east of Poland. I just don't see how that's possible based on the phylogeny and present distribution of R1b clades.

Let me ask you a question. If you ignore the STR diversity within U106, then what's the most plausible location for its origin, perhaps based on SNP diversity and its frequencies in long-standing populations with no evidence of recent founder effects? Germany, France, Austria...Hungary?

I'm not a great student of this. Please quote Jean as to what she says related to massive migrations. Her book is not available publicly yet so I think you are talking about her posts. Please quote her.

I'm referring to her comments at the former DNA-forums and at the Building History website. Both are down at the moment.

But if you don't believe me then e-mail her and I'm sure she'll tell you that these massive Germanic migrations did happen, and that one of the consequences was the emptying of large swaths of territory south of the Baltic....

You are the one making the charge so you should make a direct reference to quote her. You email her and quote her yourself. It is encumbent on you.

I have no problem with your statement there were not "massive" Germanic migrations. I think there were Germanic migrations in the post-Roman Empire era but I don't really think they were "massive."

However, if you are charging that Jean is saying they are massive, you should back that up.

.... I was referring to Jean Manco.She keeps saying there were massive migrations of Germanics into Poland during the Iron Age, and then massive migrations out of Poland during the early Middle Ages (so called migration period).This is nonsense...

I'm very willing to accept this possibility. Please just back up your charges as to what Jean has said.

^ I'm not making any charges. I'm saying that Jean firmly believes Poland was inhabited by Germanic tribes until the migration period, and then was almost left emptied of people when these tribes vacated because of pressure put on them by Huns.

This is not a new or fringe theory in the west, so there should be nothing surprising about me saying that it's accepted by Jean as a plausible scenario, especially since she said so on her website and at DNA-forums many times over.

It's not my problem that both are down or were taken down, or whatever. If you don't believe that this is her view and I'm making things up then prove it.

BTW, I see higher U106 diversity in Poland and in the Baltic states than in Germany. I'm trying figure that out. This is a R1b and Subclades forum and U106 is found among Germanic speakers. Where do you think the U106 folks came from? Are they from Germany? or some place east of or north of there or whatever?

You seem convinced that STR diversity means something in this context. But what if it means nothing? Have you considered that?

I think all data should be considered and gene diversity is a valuable piece of data whether it is STR or SNP diversity. I think all data should be considered in context, though. Are you saying that some data should be discarded if it disagrees with a particular point of view?

For instance, the STR diversity of R1a-Z93 reaches extreme levels in North India, so much so that it even makes things look like R1a originated there. But we now know that R1a-Z293 isn't ancestral to the R1a clades in Europe.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your example. I profess to being a neophyte on R1a. What does R1a-Z293 diversity in North India have to do to disprove the value of STR diversity as a point of consideration?

I'm sure there are many more like that. As for the question of where U106 came from, I have no idea. But it's unlikely to have arisen anywhere in present-day Poland or east of Poland. I just don't see how that's possible based on the phylogeny and present distribution of R1b clades.

That's okay if you have no idea. I'm just a little surprised you have no idea because you seem very assertive about your R1b hypothesis, at least of where it didn't come from (according to your postings on other threads.)

Let me ask you a question. If you ignore the STR diversity within U106, then what's the most plausible location for its origin, perhaps based on SNP diversity and its frequencies in long-standing populations with no evidence of recent founder effects? Germany, France, Austria...Hungary?

I don't know the origin of U106. I don't see any reason that it can't be east of Germany, though. SNP diversity is well balanced (high) east of Germany in our DNA projects. However, I don't think that is that meaningful because this is not a representative sample. Unfortunately, the academic studies have not done a good job of deep SNP testing withing U106. Likewise, the academic and project data shows low diversity in France, Austria and points west and south of Germany, but the data is too limited so I wouldn't say that is conclusive.

Do you really have a good reason to ignore the diversity of U106 in certain geographies? Myres' study has Poland and the Baltic states has higher diversity than Germany. That's as representative of data as anything we have, although I agree it is very limited. Let me say it like this - I would not say the Myres data proves U106 is older east of Germany, but it leaves open that possibility as plausible and by all means it definitely does not disprove it.

It's not my problem that both are down or were taken down, or whatever. If you don't believe that this is her view and I'm making things up then prove it.

It is your problem if you can't back up your characterizations of Jean's positions. I don't remember her speaking of "massive" migrations (your words) but maybe she did. If you can't back up what you say, you should retract it. That's okay. I make mistakes all the time. We have plenty of other stuff to talk about.

Let's just put your characterizations of Jean's writings aside, if you don't have specifics.

.... I'm saying that Jean firmly believes Poland was inhabited by Germanic tribes until the migration period, and then was almost left emptied of people when these tribes vacated because of pressure put on them by Huns.

This is not a new or fringe theory in the west....

So what is your main point related to R1b, Germanic tribes and to Poland? that is counter to Jean's contentions?

Is it that you think there could be no U106 east of Germany prior to the development of the proto-Germanic languages? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but could you relate U106 to these geographies and the development of Germanic cultures and pre-Germanic IE cultures? This is an R1b forum so I don't think it is off-topic.

I'm sure at some point Jean will jump in here, but I think she mentioned large scale migrations in places where language change is evident (England & Austria). So, "massive" migrations may have happened in some geographies and less so in others.

It would be good for Jean to restate her thoughts on this subject so that any issues for debate can be fairly defined

Terry - I'm trying to leave the forum. Big pile of work at the moment.

I've only read a few of the recent posts, but I saw Polako post that my position on the Goths and Vandals is standard in the West. He is correct and I thank him for resisting the goad to make this a personal gladiatorial contest. I would only add that ideas within Poland have changed since the fall of the Iron Curtain. I cite Polish archaeologists almost exclusively for archaeology within what is now Poland. So it would be better to just point at places online where these authors can be found rather than me try to sum up.

The issue of Poland's past is still very tender for many Poles, particularly those old enough to recall WWII. Nazi propaganda has been mentioned. This propaganda was designed to justify aggression towards a number of countries, including Britain and Poland. Nothing can justify such aggression. The fact that England was named for the Germanic Angles does not seem to me a good reason for Hitler to plan to invade my homeland. I can't imagine any sane Pole accepting that the Goths and Vandals who spent centuries on what is now Polish soil somehow gave Hitler the right to invade. Poland is now Slavic. It is a sovereign state. It doesn't matter how long it has been Slavic. Once we start to think that we only have the right to life and liberty if we can prove that all our ancestors have been living on the same spot for X number of centuries, it is a slippery slope.

I think all data should be considered and gene diversity is a valuable piece of data whether it is STR or SNP diversity. I think all data should be considered in context, though. Are you saying that some data should be discarded if it disagrees with a particular point of view?

We are talking about this in another thread.Diversity alone is not reliable, because the calculations often contain different lineages. Diversity is meaningful only if it for certain contains haplotypes from only one lineage. Diversity of different R1b branches together is just as meaningless as the diversity of R1a, R1b and N1c together.